Ayman Alkatib v Signet Trading Ltd Heard: by Cloud Video Platform — 2025

This was an interim relief hearing in the claimant's second tribunal claim, presented on 12 August 2025, in which Ayman Alkatib alleged automatic unfair dismissal for whistleblowing and sought interim relief. Employment Judge Ayre sat alone on 2 September 2025 by CVP. The tribunal admitted the respondent's witness statement from Wendy Stroud after rejecting the claimant's application to exclude it, and no oral evidence was given.

The tribunal set out the statutory framework in sections 128 and 129 ERA 1996 and the authorities on interim relief, including the requirement that it must appear likely that the claimant will succeed at the final hearing in showing both protected disclosures and that dismissal was because of them. The judgment recorded that 'likely' means a pretty good chance, and referred to the need to assess all disputed elements of the automatic unfair dismissal claim, while recognising that the interim relief exercise is necessarily a broad one and is not a final fact-finding hearing.

On the evidence before it, the tribunal was not satisfied that the claimant was likely to prove that he had made protected disclosures. It considered that the pleaded disclosures were stated in broad terms, did not adequately explain the public interest element, and that the claimant's own evidence suggested he had not shown a reasonable belief that the disclosures were in the public interest. The tribunal noted the claimant's later list of alleged disclosures dated between 22 March 2024 and 30 July 2025, but found the respondent's criticisms of specificity, belief, and public interest to have merit.

The tribunal also found that the material before it did not suggest that the claimant was dismissed for raising concerns. It accepted evidence that the concerns were taken seriously, grievances were investigated, and the respondent wanted the claimant to return to work. It found that the claimant had refused to engage in return-to-work discussions unless conditions were met, had by 25 July 2025 refused further internal processes, and had indicated that he considered himself constructively dismissed. The tribunal accepted the respondent's explanation that the dismissal arose from an irretrievable breakdown in the working relationship, concluded that timing and knowledge of disclosures were not enough, and refused and dismissed the interim relief application.